*** UPDATED x1 *** Crestwood mayor indicted
Friday, Aug 7, 2020 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Jon Seidel and Robert Herguth…
The mayor of southwest suburban Crestwood faces a federal bribery charge in a new indictment made public Friday that centers on the politically connected red-light camera company SafeSpeed, court records show.
Louis Presta, 69, has also been charged with filing false tax returns and lying to the FBI and IRS, allegedly about whether an envelope Presta took during a March 2018 meeting with a SafeSpeed representative had been stuffed full of $5,000 cash.
Presta’s indictment is the latest public sign of the feds’ ongoing public corruption investigations, which last month led to a bribery charge against the utility company ComEd. However, Presta’s indictment appears to be part of a separate investigation that earlier this year led to a guilty plea by former state Sen. Martin Sandoval.
In the Presta case, prosecutors say Presta sought and received benefits from SafeSpeed representatives while SafeSpeed sought to expand its services in Crestwood. They also say Presta was interviewed by federal authorities in September, around the time of a series of raids by federal agents that included Sandoval’s office at the state capitol in Springfield.
Some background is here.
*** UPDATE *** From the US Attorney…
The mayor of Crestwood has been indicted by a federal grand jury for using an interstate facility in aid of bribery, and lying to federal law enforcement about his request and receipt of benefits from a representative of a red-light camera company that provided services to the southwest suburb.
LOUIS PRESTA, 69, of Crestwood, is charged with three counts of using a facility in interstate commerce in aid of bribery and official misconduct, two counts of willfully filing a false income tax return, one count of willfully failing to file an income tax return, and one count of making false statements to the FBI and IRS. The indictment was returned Thursday in U.S. District Court in Chicago. Arraignment has not yet been scheduled.
The indictment was announced by John R. Lausch, Jr., United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois; Emmerson Buie, Jr., Special Agent-in-Charge of the Chicago Field Office of the FBI; and Kathy A. Enstrom, Special Agent-in-Charge of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in Chicago. The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher J. Stetler and James P. Durkin.
According to the indictment, the red-light camera company provided camera services to Crestwood that enabled the municipality to issue tickets to motorists for certain traffic violations. During that time and while the company was attempting to provide additional such services to Crestwood, Presta asked for and accepted benefits from representatives of the company, the indictment states.
The false statement charge pertains to Presta’s September 2019 interview with the FBI and IRS, during which Presta denied receiving gifts, cash, or campaign contributions from the red-light camera company. When shown a recording of a March 7, 2018, meeting at which Presta allegedly accepted from the company representative an envelope containing $5,000 in cash, Presta falsely stated that there was no money in the envelope, the indictment states.
The tax charges in the indictment accuse Presta of willfully filing a false income tax return for the calendar years 2015 and 2018, and willfully failing to file an income tax return for the calendar year 2014.
The public is reminded that an indictment is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The bribery and false statement counts are each punishable by up to five years in prison. Filing a false tax return is punishable by up to three years, while failing to file a tax return carries a maximum sentence of one year. If convicted, the Court must impose a reasonable sentence under federal sentencing statutes and the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
14 Comments  
|
*** UPDATED x1 *** Question of the day
Friday, Aug 7, 2020 - Posted by Rich Miller
* A provision in state law lifting contribution caps when wealthy candidates start spending big money is being gamed by all four legislative leaders to allow them to raise however much they want. From the BGA…
In 2009, with yet another governor ensnared in scandal, Illinois’ Democratic legislative leaders authored a package of laws they promised would begin to reform Illinois’ culture of corruption.
One of the biggest items in the legislative package would finally establish statewide limits on campaign contributions, a measure Illinois was one of the last states to adopt.
House Speaker Michael Madigan, who sponsored the legislation, hailed it as a way to “help restore public confidence in Illinois government.” State Sen. Don Harmon, the Democratic sponsor in the Senate, praised it for enacting “historic contribution caps, real disclosure requirements and strict enforcement measures.”
But years later, Madigan and Harmon are using a controversial loophole written into the reform bill to raise millions of dollars above the limits the legislation set. Their Republican colleagues have also blown past the limits, as all four men have collected a combined $44 million more than the contribution limits allow, a Better Government Association examination shows.
Most of that money was doled out to support favored candidates in their respective chambers, records show, as part of a longstanding tactic to win loyalty and ensure their own status atop their party hierarchy.
“They completely gamed it,” said Cynthia Canary, former executive director of the organization now called Reform for Illinois, who helped negotiate the decade-old reform measure.
At the time, the law limited individual campaign contributions to $5,000 per politician, corporate and union contributions to $10,000 and contributions from political action committees to $50,000.
All four leaders are unapologetic about bypassing the limits as part of a political strategy they say is necessary for their parties to compete in elections.
The stark alternative would be to get rid of the provision. But then one candidate could outspend an opponent at will and candidates cannot be barred from spending as much of their own money as they want, per the US Supreme Court. There’s also the issue of independent expenditure committees, which can raise unlimited funds and could overwhelm candidates who couldn’t raise funds above a certain amount. Raising the threshold to, say, $500K instead of $100K, might be one way to do it, but it would be a simple matter for people like Madigan to just borrow the money from a bank and pay it back the next day with existing campaign funds.
* The Question: Any ideas for addressing this?
…Adding… Not a bad idea, but doesn’t include the IE component…
…Adding… As if on cue, Senate President Harmon just filed a $207K A-1, with three labor union contributions totaling $190K.
*** UPDATE *** Scott Kennedy on Twitter…
State contribution limits can either be iron clad but not fair or they can be fair but easy to circumvent, but like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle it is impossible to do both at the same time, given current US Supreme Court rulings.
This piece is well researched and does a good job of explaining the history, mechanics and politics of how this played out. But the context that is missing is the limitations on states’ ability to implement contribution limits that are both fair and effective.
Per US Supreme Court decisions you cannot place contribution limits on an individual who is willing to spend their own money and you cannot place contribution limits on any Superpac (IE) that is willing to independently raise and spend unlimited funds.
There is no law the State of Illinois could have passed that would have limited or prevented JB Pritzker from spending $175 million on his own campaign in 2018.
Given those limitations states can only place contribution limits on any other candidates/committees. Would it be fair to pass iron clad limits on a campaign that couldn’t self fund and faced such an opponent? Of course not.
These fairness provisions exist to lift the restrictions candidates might face in the event of such circumstances. However it does open the door for candidates to find a way to lift the contribution limits in their races.
And that’s why we are where we are. We can make changes to the various provisions to tweak this or that but the core trade off will remain the same: contribution limits can either be iron clad but not fair or they can be fair but easy to circumvent.
I think I’ll withdraw the question unless you insist otherwise.
13 Comments
|
* Illinois Review…
Governor JB Pritzker was ordered to appear before a Clay County judge next Friday at 1:00 PM to explain why he “should not be held in indirect civil contempt.” Failure to appear in court may result in warrant for arrest, the order says.
State Rep. Darren Bailey (R-Xenia) complained to the Clay County judge that Governor Pritzker is ignoring the court’s previous order and is exercising emergency powers concerning the COVID crisis extending beyond state law’s 30-day provision for such powers.
Click here to see the order, which was drafted by attorney Tom DeVore.
*** UPDATE *** Jordan Abudayyeh…
On the same day that the Governor asked the General Assembly to do more to keep Illinoisans safe, the House GOP is instead rejecting science and perpetuating a sideshow to this global pandemic. This motion for contempt is legally baseless, frivolous and a distraction from the serious crisis facing our state. Not a single member of the GOP caucus in the General Assembly has yet to publicly express their rejection of or outrage at this legal maneuvering that creates unnecessary confusion around public health guidance.
The issuance of the Order to Show Cause, without even allowing the Governor an opportunity to respond to the flawed motion for contempt, filed only days ago, is procedurally improper, violating elementary principles of fairness. The State is grappling with its most serious challenge to the lives and health of its residents - a global pandemic - with an increasing number of counties at a warning level today due to outbreaks of cases, and all the while the GOP is playing politics. The Governor will continue to focus on protecting public health and not on the political sideshow in Clay County.
63 Comments
|
* Press release…
Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin released the following statement regarding Governor Pritzker’s proposal of new emergency rules regarding mask wearing:
“Today, I am calling on Governor Pritzker to abandon his ‘mask rule’ and work with the legislature on this issue. I am committed to respecting his priorities while recognizing the undue hardship his current rule places on businesses that are already struggling across Illinois. To do this, the Governor should immediately call the legislature into special session where we can also address the urgent need for ethics reform and the controversies surrounding the Democratic Party and Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives.”
Again, it’s already in state statute that violating any IDPH rule is a misdemeanor. The only difference with this newly proposed rule is that it exempts individuals and creates a three-step process before an entity can be charged if the local state’s attorney even goes along.
Thoughts?
*** UPDATE 1 *** Jordan Abudayyeh in the governor’s office…
As I’m sure Leader Durkin is aware, Illinois reported a high number of new COVID cases again today, similar to numbers we saw near the height of the wave of cases last spring. We have learned that quick and decisive action needs to be taken to stop the spread of this deadly virus. In the spring session the administration withdrew emergency rules after the General Assembly said they would take up this critical issue during session. Leader Durkin and his colleagues in the General Assembly failed to vote on any enforcement that protects the health and safety of Illinoisans, indeed many of his caucus members railed against any legal measures to curtail the spread of COVID-19. So as promised, the administration has introduced a new rule incorporating feedback from lawmakers and stakeholders like the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and the Illinois Restaurant Association. Existing public health rules allow the State to take action to stop the spread of infectious diseases like whooping cough, measles and many others and should include COVID-19. The only difference now is that there is a loud super-minority playing politics with public health. We can only prevent the spread of COVID-19 by working together to do what’s right, and the Governor urges the members of JCAR to protect the health and safety of the public.
…Adding… The administration may have incorporated “feedback” from IRMA, but the group is opposed to this rule…
The Illinois Retail Merchants Association says the state’s enforcement actions should target individuals who do not comply with mask mandates and other public health guidelines… rather than, quote, “demonizing innocent businesses.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Rob Karr with IRMA told me the Abudayyeh statement is “not accurate.” He did get a call yesterday, but he was never actually given any language by the governor’s office and was never asked for any input from them.
…Adding… I’m told the input the governor’s office received from IRMA came via two JCAR members.
13 Comments
|
|
Comments Off
|
* Filed by the attorney general in Clay County late yesterday…
It has been more than a month since Plaintiff Darren Bailey received precisely what his pleadings sought—a declaration by this Court that the Governor’s authority to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act, 20 ILCS 3305 et seq. (“Emergency Management Act”) ceased to exist as of April 8. Order ¶ 3 (July 2, 2020) (“July 2 Order”). But even as Bailey championed this lawsuit as “freeing business and the people of Illinois” from “one-person rule” and a “tyrannical government,” in the real world nothing changed. The Court’s nonfinal, interlocutory order granting Bailey’s request for declaratory relief does not prevent the Governor from continuing to exercise his powers under the Emergency Management Act to protect the people of this State from the Covid-19 pandemic.
Public rhetoric notwithstanding, Bailey has made every effort to prevent this Court from issuing either an injunction that would bar the Governor from exercising Emergency Management Act powers, July 2 Order ¶ 5 (granting motion to withdraw request for injunction), or a final judgment that would resolve the parties’ dispute in this Court once and for all, Response to Defendants [sic] Motion to Dismiss ¶¶ 3–11 (July 22, 2020) (“July 22 Response”). The July 2 Order is neither final nor enforceable because it involves fewer than all issues and does not include “a finding that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal.” Reed v. City of Belleville, 13 Ill. App. 3d 1093, 1094 (5th Dist. 1973).
For his latest effort to keep this case in this Court and abuse the judicial process for political gain, Bailey now moves to add an additional count disputing whether a disaster currently exists in Clay County within the meaning of the Emergency Management Act. There is no reason why the Court should entertain the matter. This Court already determined that the Governor’s authority under the Emergency Management Act is limited to 30 days per disaster— regardless of whether a Covid-19 disaster continues to exist in Clay County (or anywhere else in the State). Bailey’s current motion to add a new count is just another maneuver to thwart appellate review of the Court’s ruling. The proposed additional count is also defective as a matter of law and fails to plead sufficient facts to state a cause of action. The motion to add it should be denied.
* More…
The Court should deny Bailey’s motion to add an additional count for four independent reasons:
First, Bailey’s proposed additional count fails to state a cause of action because the Emergency Management Act does not require the Governor to make disaster determinations on a county-by-county basis.
Second, Bailey’s proposed additional count fails to state a cause of action because he does not plead facts sufficient to show that there is currently no “public health emergency” in Clay County.
Third, Bailey lacks standing to pursue his proposed additional count because a decision in his favor will not redress his claimed injury. This is because Bailey fails to challenge an independent basis for the Governor’s authority to exercise emergency powers—the existence of an “epidemic” in Clay County.
Fourth, Bailey’s proposed additional count is untimely and, in the context of his many other gambits designed to delay the conclusion of these proceedings, reflects an ongoing bad-faith effort to abuse the judicial process for political gain.
* Brutal…
According to Bailey, the fact that no one has yet to die in Clay County from Covid-19, and only 9 people to date have contracted it, means there is, in his opinion, no “high probability” that “a large number of deaths” will occur—and likewise no “high probability” of “widespread exposure” to a virus “that poses a significant risk of future harm to a large number of people.”
Bailey’s argument reduces to the proposition that an event has no probability of occurring until it has occurred. Or to put it another way, a highly contagious and deadly virus has no probability of causing widespread harm until it does. This reasoning is stunningly illogical, and the Court should not accept it. […]
Ordinarily, a litigant who had convinced a court to rule in his favor on the merits of his case would take immediate action to effectuate that result. Here, Bailey did the opposite. He resisted every effort to dismiss his one outstanding count and transform the Court’s interlocutory order into a final judgment. July 22 Response ¶¶ 3–11. To this day, the July 2 Order binds no one and has no legal effect because Bailey apparently prefers it to remain a meaningless piece of paper—in stark distinction to the far-reaching consequences he ascribes to it in the public eye.
Bailey’s proposed additional count is designed to further his strategy to drag out this case without an appealable order. Bailey intends for this Court not to resolve his dispute but rather to amplify it. This is an abuse of the judicial process.
…Adding… Rep. Darren Bailey speaking live on Facebook yesterday…
Its no surprise that our numbers even as the governor suggested yesterday in southern Illinois are increasing you know per capita, per our population. I personally still do not feel threatened by those numbers and statistics. When we see we’re testing, tests are up and so obviously so are potential positive results. What is good is that I am hearing, I have heard so far nothing but success – trying to get some doctors online eventually – regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine and the z pack process. Several area hospitals, doctors, are prescribing that and its working. I have friends who have tested positive. I have people who I have known whose family members are in the hospital. I’ve talked anyone I can get in contact with and that I can talk to locally and just kind of understand and hear and so far the people that I’ve talked to would not have changed anything. The one gentleman the we’re praying for, that is in the hospital, an older man, he had the choice to make whether or not to be in and out. And he just simply didn’t want to live as restricted because we don’t know when this is going to end if it is ever going to end. […]
But regarding the older gentleman that’s in St. Louis in ICU, the family, it just, it is what it is.
21 Comments
|
* I’ve been telling subscribers about this for a few days now…
Building on efforts to protect Illinois’ workers and communities in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Governor JB Pritzker announced that the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) will file emergency rules for businesses, schools, and child care establishments regarding the use of face coverings and the size of gatherings. The governor also signed SB471 to help protect workers who continue to serve on the frontlines of the fight against COVID-19.
“As I’ve visited with and listened to mayors and health departments all across our state, it’s clear there is still an even greater need to get people to wear masks – especially to protect frontline workers, whether they’re at the front of a store asking you to put on your mask or whether they’re responding to 911 calls to save those in distress,” said Governor JB Pritzker. “These rules, which provide multiple opportunities for compliance before any penalty is issued, are a commonsense way to enforce public health guidelines. Illinois has made substantial progress in our fight against COVID-19 because the vast majority of communities and business owners have done the right thing. These rules will help ensure that the minority of people who refuse to act responsibly won’t take our state backward.”
“We know that face coverings are key to helping prevent the spread of COVID-19, but it only works if everyone wears them,” said IDPH Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike. “We are seeing cases increasing each day and hearing about people not complying with the masking mandate. This rule is an effort to help keep all of us healthy and decrease the risk of contracting COVID-19.”
NEW IDPH COVID-19 EMERGENCY RULES
In an effort to maintain the progress we have made in Illinois’ COVID-19 pandemic response, the Pritzker administration is filing emergency rules for businesses, schools, and child care establishments regarding the use of face coverings and the size of gatherings.
These rules provide multiple opportunities for compliance before any penalty is issued, giving local health departments and local law enforcement more leeway to support community public health in a productive manner. While existing, pre-pandemic enforcement laws, like revoking a license, are stringent and severe, these rules provide flexibility for local communities and a measured process to help keep people safe.
That process is as follows:
• First, businesses will be given a warning in the form of written notice and encouraged to voluntarily comply with public health guidance.
• Second, businesses that do not voluntarily comply will be given an order to have some or all of their patrons leave the premises as needed to comply with public health guidance and reduce risks.
• Third, if the business continues to refuse to comply, the business can receive a class A misdemeanor and be subject to a fine ranging from $75-$2,500.
These rules do not apply to individuals and penalties will not exceed a misdemeanor and a $75-$2,500 fine.
The emergency rules also reinforce the authority of IDPH and local health departments to investigate COVID-19 cases and reaffirm that businesses have a responsibility to cooperate with those investigations.
The proposal now goes before JCAR, which is scheduled to meet next week. Again, subscribers know more.
* SB471…
As Illinois’ essential workers continue to serve on the frontlines of the fight against COVID-19, Governor Pritzker signed SB 471 to expand workplace protections. To directly protect workers in retail, the law adds a penalty for assaulting or battering a retail worker who is conveying public health guidance, such as requiring patrons to wear face-coverings or promoting social distancing. This provision sends the message that it’s vitally important for workers to be both respected and protected while serving on the front lines.
“As we continue to adapt to the changes forced on us by the current pandemic, we have to also create a response that addresses the long-time issues it has exacerbated,” said Senate Majority Leader Kimberly A. Lightford. “Our essential workers put their lives at risk for us to stay safe, and it is clear that we have to continue to do better to protect working class people with a renewed commitment to providing basic rights for everyone.”
“As our state faces the challenges created by the ongoing global pandemic, we are doing all we can to support and protect our front line and essential workers,” said State Representative Jay Hoffman. “This legislation allows front line workers that have been impacted by COVID-19 to focus on recovering while sending a clear message to all our essential workers that we are behind them and will do all we can to protect their safety and well-being.”
The law also increases paid disability leave for any injury that occurs after March 9, 2020 by 60 days for firefighters, law enforcement and paramedics whose recovery was hindered by COVID-19.
More specifically, eligible employees include:
• Any part-time or full-time State correctional officer or any other full or part-time employee of the Department of Corrections
• Any full or part-time employee of the Prisoner Review Board
• Any full or part-time employee of the Department of Human Services working within a penal institution or a State mental health or developmental disabilities facility operated by the Department of Human Services
• Any full-time law enforcement officer or full-time firefighter
These measure build upon the Pritzker administration’s efforts to protect the safety and livelihood of Illinois residents by continuing to enforce all labor laws during the pandemic.
SB 471 takes effect immediately.
…Adding… Center Square…
A member of the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules who has seen a draft copy of the rule expected to be addressed Tuesday in Springfield said a special session of the legislature is needed to debate the issues, rather than unilateral rules.
“I am very skeptical and uncomfortable with the administration setting up new criminal enforcement regulation outside of the legislative process,” said state Sen. Paul Shcimpf, R-Waterloo. […]
Schimpf said the legislature needed to make state laws, not the governor.
State statutes have long made any violation of an IDPH rule a Class A Misdemeanor. There’s absolutely nothing new here except for the procedure outlined above to narrow the scope and the downright harmful politics of this pandemic.
34 Comments
|
|
Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...
 
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
|
   
|
Hosted by MCS |
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax |
Advertise Here |
Mobile Version |
Contact Rich Miller
|
